Why every time a new technology comes out with crappy obvious limitations does somebody feel compelled to write a blog post trying to justify it as actually good? This is just somebody trying to talk themselves into keeping their $3,500 toy
I was also serious that the flaws are part of the charm for me, because it really does harken back to the “gadget age” of the 2000s. It takes me back to being 15 years old, wearing a Fossil Wrist PDA, trying to be productive with Palm OS using a fingernail-sized stylus. I really loved that sort of thing, and it’s been really hard for me to recapture that feeling this past decade.
AVP is a device that, so far, has brought me joy and makes me think about my relationship with technology. If not for the price tag, it would be a no-brainer for me to keep. But as I continue to mess around with the device, the price is constantly ringing in the back of my mind, making me want to justify it, even though I may not be able to in the end.
I read it as saying "this thing has some major limitations that forced me to slow down, which is actually valuable for me because I have ADHD. I didn't expect that and it's kind of neat, but who knows if that's actually valuable long term. Also here are some other details about the device imo"
As someone who also has pretty severe adhd, I relate to the idea that barriers to impulsivity can be really valuable and it was interesting to read about someone experiencing that unintentionally. It makes me feel more connected to the world of people like me. I didn't come away thinking they're suggesting I buy one because I have adhd, honestly, I came away being _less_ likely to get one because of the author's description of their experience.
It was just an experience another human found neat and wanted to put on their blog. I personally like when people feel comfortable and inspired to share like that.
But then again, it helps the entire industry that it apparently has reached a different audience this time who gets hyped again.
I just wish there could be new use-cases than just the same old recycled use-cases like virtual monitors, watching movies, looking at how it is to stand on the moon, or virtual conferencing. Maybe there really are no killer VR apps, except beat saber :/
Wasn't AVP supposed to be an AR headset? Or they just haven't really figured out what to do there? Now it's just a VR headset with passthrough, it isn't really "using" the external world.
Also the window where wealthy early adopters confuse their ability to spend ridiculous money on a beta product with actual possession of insight or wisdom; this is the Z-tier of access journalism.
Same goes for comment sections and any time people get the opportunity to do anything with a possible attention reward. I've taken to being conscious of the kinds of obnoxious/unhelpful/nitpicking responses when commenting in threads to try to discourage low quality responses.
This was basically completely new product category for many, many people. Yes, the Pebble existed, but the Pebble was niche and ultra niche. (I had one; loved the original and the Time).
The first Watch was crazy limited compared to today's variants, but the punditry was unceasing. Especially since you had people debating whether they should spend $10k on basically a flex.
I assume You are being deliberately ridiculous?
Probably not more enjoyment, unless you pretend the early buyer can never upgrade ever.
> The "patient gamers" subreddit seems to agree with this thinking. You basically just delay your game of choice by a few years. Makes absolutely no difference to you except you save money and perhaps skip some disappointing titles.
It makes no difference if you almost never talk about the game with anyone and want almost no multiplayer out of it either. That fits some games but definitely not others.
And if the game in question doesn't interest anyone after X years... there are probably good reasons for that ? Why would you first start playing and discussing it then ?
The discussion problem is that nobody you know is exploring the game. There's no collaborative learning and sharing and theorycrafting. Even if they played it they might not remember the story well after five years.
(And also one much more experienced player complaining that "nobody is reading the rules", and getting pushback about some "mandatory" rule that I guess some very experienced players are used to, but "we are not all as good at the game as you, bud".)
And this doesn't even take into account motivating your family/friends to play with you, there was one dad+son looking for tech support and at least one another dad+son game going on.
In specific terms an early adopter risks disappointment and at best gets an early version of a product. Subsequent upgrades provide marginal enjoyment and often feel more like obligations than anything. The late adopter comes in when they know they need/want the product and they go from zero to a much later, more capable version of the product. And then get to enjoy just as many real quality of life improvements, they're delayed but the frequency can be the same. Plus they save a whole load of money.
In that case, someone that is easily able to delay but chooses not to might be happiest of all?
> Subsequent upgrades provide marginal enjoyment and often feel more like obligations than anything.
Uh huh...
I don't know, I don't find your argument at all convincing that this person gets less enjoyment considering they get to have the same product at the end.
Maybe they have less of a first day wow factor if they touch many intermediate versions, but that fades fast. But even that is a maybe because by splitting up advances you can give each one more focus.
Learning how to walk is way better than crawling, but you're not going to have more total enjoyment by waiting and going nowhere in the mean time.
> Plus they save a whole load of money.
Obviously they save money, but the interesting part of your claim was that they both save money and get more enjoyment.
Instant gratification is largely simple decisions by simple people.
You're allowed to like tech even is it's not yet practical or even when it clearly will never be.
The whole gratification part comes from playing with the bleeding edge. It comes with dreaming of what this tech could become.
I shouldn't complain, though. Early adopters are like investors who don't receive any equity. They pay for the R&D etc that people like me later get to benefit from.